U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-11-2019, 08:47 AM
 
Location: Elysium
6,580 posts, read 3,634,743 times
Reputation: 4568

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1 View Post
That particular division is unlikely to be activated enmasse to fight in combat, meaning while it is officially a combat division she is unlikely to ever lead it in combat. It would be a bad day in America if it ever happens, not because of who leads it, but because of the situation we would have to be in for it to happen. However, bits and pieces of it have and will continue to be eligible to be activated in the future, so she may be in charge of troops or units who are in combat.
Even during WWII it was rare for National Guard divisional commander to retain command when an intact division with its own headquarters was deployed. Today 9 times out of 10 they will prepare their Guardsmen and a slice of the division would serve under another headquarters element in the combat zone. But General Yeager is just the first, sooner than later a brigade combat team or divisional HQ with a female CO will be in Afghanistan or other current combat zone
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-11-2019, 08:53 AM
 
1,058 posts, read 165,386 times
Reputation: 552
She will be commanding a division, not a battalion-level infantry unit. She does not need to have experience with infantry doctrines or tactics at division level.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 08:57 AM
 
6,635 posts, read 4,596,063 times
Reputation: 13349
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell View Post
Have any facts other than gender supporting your opinion?
Of course not. The thread title says it all. Horrible decision because itís a woman, not horrible decision because itís an unqualified person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 09:00 AM
 
2,264 posts, read 622,899 times
Reputation: 2371
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGoodTheBadTheUgly View Post
What does a helicopter pilot know about infantry service? This is nothing more than PC gone amok and it’s going to hurt our Military capability down the road.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/1st-woman...150916046.html
It is indeed amazing what a woman can do if only she ignores what men tell her she can't. Thanks OP for highlighting this officer's hard working path to success. The military gets it and so does she.

The most effective way to do it, is to do it. What have you done, today?

Last edited by corpgypsy; 06-11-2019 at 09:25 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2019, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,895 posts, read 14,228,365 times
Reputation: 16081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58 View Post
Helicopter pilot? "Yeager deployed to Iraq in 2011 as deputy commander of the Cal Guard's 40th Combat Aviation Brigade, then served as a battalion and brigade commander."

If she were a man I'm sure you would not be questioning her qualifications.
Oh, yes, I would.

You don't understand the difference between combat arms and the other two groups.

Quote:
Originally Posted by m1a1mg View Post
Because it's 2019, not 1919. Women have shown themselves fully capable of leadership on the battlefield.
That's not the issue.

I'm sure she's more than capable of commanding an aviation brigade or air cavalry brigade.

However, that in no way qualifies her to command a combat arms maneuver unit, like an infantry division.

Infantry, armor, cavalry, field artillery and air defense artillery are the five combat arms branches.

Military police and engineers are the two combat support branches.

Everything else is non-combat support.

As everyone can plainly see, aviation is neither combat nor combat support.

No one has a problem with an armor officer commanding an infantry division, just as no one has an issue with an infantry officer commanding an armored division. A cavalry officer can command either, just as an infantry or armor officer can command a cavalry division.

In spite of field artillery and air defense artillery being combat arms, you don't see either commanding maneuver divisions, although from WW II to the present it has happened on rare occasions.

That doesn't mean there's no career path, because there is. Field artillery officers command corps artillery, which is effectively an artillery division. It has a headquarters and headquarters battery, three to five artillery brigades, with each brigade having 3-5 artillery battalions and the battalions have a 4x4 battery format.

The same for air defense artillery officers. They don't have corp air defense, but they do have air defense command.

It works, because there are far fewer ADA officers than field artillery officers, and infantry, armor and cavalry officers far outnumber field artillery officers.

In spite of being combat support, no engineer officer or military police officer has commanded a maneuver division, either, but each also has a special command structure for a career path, and they are also far fewer and number than infantry, armor or cavalry officers.

You wouldn't put a transportation or supply officer in charge of a division, so why would you put an aviation officer in charge?

Call it what it really is: PC in the membrane.

She's ill-qualified for the job. I'm better qualified than she, because I have more training and experience than she does.

I was S-3/S-3 Air at the battalion, regiment and brigade level.

I planned combat operations. She never never has. At most she planned a non-combat support operation.

Therein lies the difference, and it's a major difference (no pun intended).

If I told her to send the cavalry out to locate and pin the enemy, she would give me a blank stare, because she has no idea what I'm talking about. She's not trained in infantry, armor or cavalry operations and she doesn't know how to array or employ those units properly to be the most effective.

She'll get people killed, or more likely, everyone else will do 10x the work to make her look good and she'll get all the credit for doing nothing and then everyone will be fooled into believing she actually did something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2019, 03:10 PM
 
Location: Murrica
3,146 posts, read 1,795,310 times
Reputation: 2144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1 View Post
That particular division is unlikely to be activated enmasse to fight in combat, meaning while it is officially a combat division she is unlikely to ever lead it in combat. It would be a bad day in America if it ever happens, not because of who leads it, but because of the situation we would have to be in for it to happen. However, bits and pieces of it have and will continue to be eligible to be activated in the future, so she may be in charge of troops or units who are in combat.
NG divisions never deploy enmasse in the current environment. NGB can, and as I pointed out earlier, does deploy NG division HQs to be battle space owners. So Iím not sure where you get the idea that this division would be any different? Itís an Infantry Division.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2019, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Mexico City (at the moment)
1,345 posts, read 469,329 times
Reputation: 1963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58 View Post
Helicopter pilot? "Yeager deployed to Iraq in 2011 as deputy commander of the Cal Guard's 40th Combat Aviation Brigade, then served as a battalion and brigade commander."

If she were a man I'm sure you would not be questioning her qualifications.
You are probably correct.

I like to tell female vets "Thank You for your cervix!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2019, 03:54 PM
 
Location: Murrica
3,146 posts, read 1,795,310 times
Reputation: 2144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Oh, yes, I would.

You don't understand the difference between combat arms and the other two groups.



That's not the issue.

I'm sure she's more than capable of commanding an aviation brigade or air cavalry brigade.

However, that in no way qualifies her to command a combat arms maneuver unit, like an infantry division.

Infantry, armor, cavalry, field artillery and air defense artillery are the five combat arms branches.

Military police and engineers are the two combat support branches.

Everything else is non-combat support.

As everyone can plainly see, aviation is neither combat nor combat support.

No one has a problem with an armor officer commanding an infantry division, just as no one has an issue with an infantry officer commanding an armored division. A cavalry officer can command either, just as an infantry or armor officer can command a cavalry division.

In spite of field artillery and air defense artillery being combat arms, you don't see either commanding maneuver divisions, although from WW II to the present it has happened on rare occasions.

That doesn't mean there's no career path, because there is. Field artillery officers command corps artillery, which is effectively an artillery division. It has a headquarters and headquarters battery, three to five artillery brigades, with each brigade having 3-5 artillery battalions and the battalions have a 4x4 battery format.

The same for air defense artillery officers. They don't have corp air defense, but they do have air defense command.

It works, because there are far fewer ADA officers than field artillery officers, and infantry, armor and cavalry officers far outnumber field artillery officers.

In spite of being combat support, no engineer officer or military police officer has commanded a maneuver division, either, but each also has a special command structure for a career path, and they are also far fewer and number than infantry, armor or cavalry officers.

You wouldn't put a transportation or supply officer in charge of a division, so why would you put an aviation officer in charge?

Call it what it really is: PC in the membrane.

She's ill-qualified for the job. I'm better qualified than she, because I have more training and experience than she does.

I was S-3/S-3 Air at the battalion, regiment and brigade level.

I planned combat operations. She never never has. At most she planned a non-combat support operation.

Therein lies the difference, and it's a major difference (no pun intended).

If I told her to send the cavalry out to locate and pin the enemy, she would give me a blank stare, because she has no idea what I'm talking about. She's not trained in infantry, armor or cavalry operations and she doesn't know how to array or employ those units properly to be the most effective.

She'll get people killed, or more likely, everyone else will do 10x the work to make her look good and she'll get all the credit for doing nothing and then everyone will be fooled into believing she actually did something.
I don't even know where to begin with this mess. Your information may have been accurate, circa 1990. I wrote Army Armor doctrine from 1996-2001. Even then some of your claims were drastically outdated.

MI brigade commanders have owned battle space in Afghanistan. 201st Battlefield Surveillance Brigade, for one, has done it twice.

Since 2001 aviation has been considered a combat arm. (SF and combat engineers as well) It can perform it's own scout missions.

Last I looked, there was no more Corps Artillery.

That bolded part is so enormously offensive. Your training is obviously vastly out of date and just pure wrong. First, there is a reason a division commander has a staff. They are present to assist with elements of the force. A division commander does not formulate a plan within a vacuum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2019, 03:56 PM
 
1,484 posts, read 414,156 times
Reputation: 858
Well, the OP just showed his true colors....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2019, 03:57 PM
 
3,546 posts, read 1,360,288 times
Reputation: 6955
generals are just military bureaucrats.
anyone can be one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top